Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday February 08, 2012 @06:31PM
from the brand-new-bag dept.

redletterdave writes "Following the precedent set by commercial airliners, the U.S. Air Force plans to buy up to 18,000 iPads for its Air Mobility Command (AMC), replacing heavy flight bags with light and efficient Apple iPad 2s for the crews that fly cargo aircraft. The devices will reportedly be used by the crews on the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster aircraft. There are several benefits to using electronic flight bags instead of physical versions. For one, the iPad can instantly update charts electronically, while the AMC would require flying charts get reprinted every 28 days to stay up-to-date. By cutting publication printing and distribution costs, and exchanging 70 pounds of paper for a 1.3-pound iPad, the Air Force can save some serious cash, including more than $1.2 million worth of fuel per year."

Seriously. Perhaps it is just a fantasy I've held since I was younger, but I would have thought the military would have developed their own systems, designed to survive Armageddon. The thought of a military officer touting an Apple iPad into battle is a little...strange; I mean, they are cargo aircraft, but still. All we need are some Hal-branded headphones, and Twitter-enabled position locators, and the image shall be complete.

Well, I'm not an aircraft engineer (either ground or flight), but I really don't remember 120v 60hz AC service routinely available on most military aircraft I've flown in. The stuff I've seen is 120 Vac at 400hz or 28 Vdc.

I suppose a multi-billion dollar program to retrofit all these AMC aircraft to include US household current on the flight decks of the current transport aircraft inventory wouldn't be all bad...

Well, I'm not an aircraft engineer (either ground or flight), but I really don't remember 120v 60hz AC service routinely available on most military aircraft I've flown in. The stuff I've seen is 120 Vac at 400hz or 28 Vdc. I suppose a multi-billion dollar program to retrofit all these AMC aircraft to include US household current on the flight decks of the current transport aircraft inventory wouldn't be all bad...

Like most other gadgets, the iPad can charge off of a USB port. That would be 5 Vdc.

Like most other gadgets, the iPad can charge off of a USB port. That would be 5 Vdc.

Actually, the iPad can not be charged off a standard USB port while it is powered on. It draws 1.5 amps (more than the.5 amps of USB 2.0).
There are USB ports that will charge the iPad (if they support the Battery Charging v1.1 [usb.org] spec), but having those on a device is rare.

The iPad can charge slowly when it is asleep from a standard USB 2.0 port if there is nothing else drawing power.

Like most other gadgets, the iPad can charge off of a USB port. That would be 5 Vdc.

Actually, the iPad can not be charged off a standard USB port while it is powered on. It draws 1.5 amps (more than the.5 amps of USB 2.0).
There are USB ports that will charge the iPad (if they support the Battery Charging v1.1 [usb.org] spec), but having those on a device is rare.
The iPad can charge slowly when it is asleep from a standard USB 2.0 port if there is nothing else drawing power.

I think the point is that if there are any power ports available--and I don't know if there are, but if they are--it shouldn't be difficult to make an adaptor that can peel off 5V DC and spit it out of a USB-shaped plug.

And now if you'll circle back to the start of the discussion you'll see that a converter does have to be specially made because you aren't going to find a standard household powerpoint on a military aircraft.

And you'd be wrong. The C-17 has several "standard household powerpoints" conveniently located at the feet of the passengers seated in the "jump-seats". I'm sure there are even more on the flight deck.

Always. In it's most simple case the AC needs to be converted to DC before being converted again to DC.In the most common case the DC is smoothed by capacitors that need to withstand 400V and a high ripple.In the most ideal case (anything larger than that cheap $5 chinese crap you normally get with a phone) you need to isolate the output from the input via a small transformer, and often feedback through optical isolation.

I'd have thought even the USAF wouldn't be stupid enough NOT to take mid-air charging into account when they were considering this, although a mil-spec 120VAC/400Hz or 28Vdc to USB plugpack will probably cost $40,000 each when the supply contracts are signed.

If you want to do it in the most horribly inefficient fashion, yeah, that will work.

Shunt regulators really suck for anything other than minuscule amounts of current, for a reference as example.

A shunt reg has to burn more than just the voltage drop (the extra in the zener, to keep the voltage level). It has to be sized to draw slightly more than the device's maximum draw at all times.So - say full load on the ipad is 2A, idle is 1A. We design this to draw say 2.2A, a little room so it doesn't drop out on peak - so we're burning 28V * 2.2A = 62W all the time, while the ipad is getting 5W average, or 10W peak (out of the 62W).8% efficiency at idle. 16% at full load.

A better setup is a normal linear reg (which can be made up of discrete parts, or integrated like the venerable 7805), which will basically only burn the drop (there is a small amount for ref, but basically negligible)So 23V drop * 1A draw = 23W burnt. total consumption 28W.~18% efficiency at idle or full load (this one is linear..)

Typically you wouldn't do this though, you'd use a transformer off the AC supply (assuming their is one) to get the voltage into the ballpark, then rectify and reg, to get efficiency up over 50%, maybe as much as 80% with decent design and low dropout reg. (transformers are heavy and bulky though - which is why planes use 400Hz).

SMPS is of course, the best, some modes exceeding 90% efficiency - but that didn't always exist. A lot of old military transceivers used dynamotors, which is the most efficient non-transistorized way to do DC-DC conversion. kinda... funny in a way, so very primitive, but also sort of genius. brute-brilliance, i guess... Heavy, loud, and high maintenance, though.

I can't help but think that if the goal is to have electronic versions of the manuals and charting there are better choices available, but the iPad gets picked because everybody wants one. I would have hoped that the US Military would look to open source solutions . . . .

1) EFBs typically run on ship power during flight2) An aircraft will have at least 2 EFBs in operation at a time - pilot and copilot. Some aircraft have a 3rd EFB for a center screen.3) Many of the dedicated EFB tablets that have been in use for years are powered by NiMh batteries (out of fear of Li-Ion) and last less than an hour on a charge. Since they rarely run on batteries, this has not been much of an issue to the best of my knowledge.

Yeah, it's actually quite reasonable to question whether the issue of battery life and providing mains power in an airplane has even been considered. It's fairly routine for system acquisition agencies to overlook little technicalities like this.

They can probably keep them powered while they fly. MY concern would be that some glitch (or an EMP from solar storm, or something) would cause them to fail, in which case the only real backup is... a paper chart. Which would mean they have to buy charts anyway, and won't actually save any money.

Maybe they think having 2-3 of them on board at a time constitutes "backup". Who knows? All I know is that I'd want a paper chart to be there. Just in case.

Do you think 70 lbs of paper maps is a better item to help you through 300 kilometers of enemy territory? Or do you figure that, in between the shooting down and the crash landing, you'll flip through those 70 lbs of paper maps and take only the really important ones?

There's no reason to not keep an annually updated paper copy in the plane, in addition to the monthly updated digital copy. I think the bigger problem is going to come from battery replacements - which isn't as easy as just swapping in a new battery pack when the current one goes dead. You have to plug it in to a wall for 2-4 hours to bet to 50% charge first.

Well, my first response to that would be "How secure is the rest of the plane to an EMP blast?", because if charts are all you got and the remaining electronics just got fried, I'd guess you're in big trouble anyway. These are after all cargo planes, they're not what you plan to use on your front lines. Your RORO ships aren't exactly the best at naval warfare either....

I look forward to Picardo85's other stunning observations, such as how the routine use of food prevents starvation.

I too was a bit shocked by getting 5 for insightful. But yeah, I do have other contributions to/. that have been of more value than that obvious post, so don't worry. I'm not just here to steal your mod points.;-)

The FAAs position with other carriers has been that there has to be an alternate source of the information, and at least one company has gotten by with a second ipad as that source. So, I imagine that the Air Force will have to either continue to lug around the paper, or the will have to have two ipads. Personally, i wouldn't find it worth the hassle and would just use the paper charts.
Alternatively, they could buy an actual piece of equipment designed from the ground up and rigorously tested for exactly t

Alternatively, they could buy an actual piece of equipment designed from the ground up and rigorously tested for exactly this purpose and which is permanently in the cockpit and can also be updated via subscription services. But then they wouldn't have toy ipads to play with at taxpayers expense.

Are you referring to an existing device that's cheaper than an iPad, or just taking a pot-shot?

They are not cheaper than an ipad. In fact they are much more expensive. However, they are designed for use in flight environments, they have input methods specifically designed for use in flight, they are rigorously tested for interference with other devices and certified for cockpit use by the FAA. They also have larger, easier to read displays that are designed to be used in cockpits where it can be either very dark, or the sun can be shining directly on it. They are also wired into the electronics system, can integrate with the autopilot and other aircraft devices, and are not loose in the cockpit. Finally, another plus is that many and possibly all C-5 and C-17 aircraft in operation already have them.

They are also wired into the electronics system, can integrate with the autopilot and other aircraft devices, and are not loose in the cockpit. Finally, another plus is that many and possibly all C-5 and C-17 aircraft in operation already have them.

Which means that the iPad is replacing the paper copies as a backup system to start with. So, if the main system breaks, the iPad needs to work only long enough to find a reasonable field to land at, and not necessarily provide a full-flight's worth of operation. Considering that both pilots will have one, there will be two backups.

The Air Force cooperates with and submits to the authority of the FAA except during national emergencies and within designated Military Operation Areas (in which they usually still keep the FAA abreast of their intended activities).

There is enough excess electrical power on aircraft to run an iPad or 50 so batteries aren't a problem. If the pilot, co-pilot and loadmaster have ipads, then 1 or 2 of them failing wouldn't endanger the mission.

if you lost power like that? you have lost control of 90%of the plane anyways, and your going to be landing really quickly. whether you want to or not.

besides the ipad has a battery. If it is plugged in when the power goes out you still have 8 hours to land which is probably 2 times longer than the pilots are capable of handling one of those cargo planes for manually.

I have to say, it reminds me of the comment an ex-Signals guy doing his amateur radio licence at the local club made, along the lines of "a map with a bullethole in it is a map that's still mostly accurate, but a laptop with a bullethole in it is really just too big to be a useful paperweight"

Of the devices mentioned, they're all manufactured in China or Taiwan, except for the Sony Reader, for which I can't find good references as to where it is manufactured. It probably was manufactured in Japan, but I read that manufacturing was moved to China after the earthquake.

Well actually the article which TFA refers to points out, "AMC said in a notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website Thursday that it planned to buy "a minimum of 63 and a maximum of 18,000, iPad 2, Brand Name or Equal devices" for the crews that fly cargo aircraft such as the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster. Lt. Col. Glen Roberts, AMC public affairs director, said the command "is looking for a tablet device, not necessarily an iPad."

I found a reference that indicates the number of C-5 And C-17s that the Air Force operates to be 316 (as of 2009). It seems odd that they would consider purchasing up to 600 tablet devices per airplane for the fleet.

Yuck. Going back and forth between number and alpha keyboards on screen nearly caused a riot. I had to code custom on-screen touch-keypads to allow speedy, painless data entry. Nice as a readout device and OK with some interation, but be wary of using one for data capture.

TFA specifies once that in truth, they are looking at tablets, not just iPads. Than it's back to Apple this and iPad that. If it indeed is a forgone conclusion, they should have explained why. That's some mighty fine journalism, there. Also, they mention iOS isn't certified yet; don't know if any tablet is.

If they go for iPads they go for a closed source system from a single provider. I don't think that sort of thing should be legal for a publicly funded organization when a multi-supplier, open source alternative exists.

But one thing about the Air Force there are different commands and they all make different decisions . ASFOC will make one decision, AMC another and the ANG another, and they never cooperate, costing tax payers millions.

ASFOC will make one decision, AMC another and the ANG another, and they never cooperate, costing tax payers millions.

In theory (i.e., the Federal Acquisition Regulations [acquisition.gov]), they're supposed to. But the links in the story do make it look like a direct acquisition through the operational command, and not through an Air Force Materiel Command acquisition agency. I guess the cost of even thousands of overpriced iPads isn't enough money to warrant that.

sure, the ipad is a great way to replace paper. but clearly someone's forgotten what the flight bags are for. there are a few beautiful things about paper -- it's always there, it has zero dependencies, laminated it can withstand more than the human using it, and absolutely nothing can go wrong with it. it just can't break.

so since these things are consulted when the plane breaks, two engines die, and the power is out, it's nice to have the redundancy be a completely different technology.

so when the ipad hangs, is there tech support mid-flight? remember, paper has zero tech support requirements.

I work in the corporate aviation side and deal with EFBs on a regular basis, including iPads. EFBs are nothing new, and the iPad certainly isn't the first such device on the market - in the past they have been mostly Windows tablets. The main benefit of iPads is the ease of use and support. Windows based EFBs are a support nightmare just like any other Windows machine (user malfunctions mostly), and the iPads make this much easier as they are fairly idiot-proof.

And that's where the benefits end. They simply are not designed for the rugged environment of a cockpit and flight crews tend to be about as dainty as gorilla. My biggest complain is the proprietary connector - it's weak, flimsy and breaks easily, and then is a challenge to replace as it is not a standard connector. The screens are decent for 'consumer grade' devices, but sunlight readablitly is not as good as some of dedicated EFB products out there. I'm also not aware of any 'Made for iPad' devices that allow interfacing with a ship's avionics to acquire weather, flight plan and position data as we do with Windows tablets.

Now I hate Windows EFBs with a burning passion, but I just don't think iPads are appropriate for professional aviators. We've been supporting them in the field for less than a year and they are simply not holding up. IMO a rugged Android tablet with appropriate Android Open Accessory avionics interfacing would be a much better solution, but I don't know what is out there to this end. Everyone wants their iPads and doesn't care to hear about anything else...

In keeping with established tradition, my company has still not provided the promised EFB (electronic flight bag). we have been told literally "any day now" since 2004. Many studies, prototypes and vendors have been examined, but finally, as of October 2011, a commitment was made to procure the iPad. The new promise was November, then mid-December. And still... no device. Current issue is regulatory and infrastructural.
At any rate, the advantage is mostly one of convenience. For someone with near vision issues, it will be very helpful. But the real gain will be that the paper won't have any more coffee stains on them. What it will not provide is depiction of aircraft position, but that may actually be good as you'd want one source for that- on-board navigation.
Some of the relevant issues:
*Who's responsible for equipment (if stolen, broken, not charged, etc.)
*Can we use it below 10000' (not trivial to FAA)
*How will data be updated (do I provide access to server or company)
*can the device be incorporated as "aircraft permanent equipment"
*can I watch porn on it or jailbreak/root it (of course not)
*can they monitor what they do with it (not unless required by law, but they certainly will...)

So what does this tell the enemies of the US airforce? That they can ground cargo operation with directed EMP. The ipad isn't EMP hardened, so a single EMP burst will deprive the pilots of all charting and mission planning. What a great way to shut down US airlift capability! No body would have bothered in the past because US military planes are EMP hardened so you couldn't kill the plane. But now with the advent a consumer electronic device for charts and mission plans you have the ability to shut down all

For both BlackBerry and their "professional grade" but too-small PlayBook [blackberry.com] tablet, and for E-Ink [eink.com] and their lack of color devices on the market. To be fair, there is the jetBook Color [ectaco.com] which is targeted at the educational market... but it's the only one and I doubt anyone has made any additional aviation apps for it. Too bad they couldn't have leveraged their branding for the aviation market.

I had a hard time believing they'd go for an iPad over a more rugged device, but the article says Special Operations Command already did so. iPads are consumer hardware. From Apple's specs: [apple.com]

Even for a cargo plane, that seems pretty limited. I know they have at least some climate control in flight, but don't they park the planes in arctic and desert environments too? Don't they need the checklists before they start the plane up? Or do they keep them running all the time and only shut down at their home base?

I remember reading an article a while back by a retired USAF pilot where he wrote about the time spent making sure that all the manuals and other paperwork were up to date and the trouble he could get into if it wasn't when someone inspected the aircraft. So I'm guessing that could save more than $1.2 million dollars of aircrew time.

I'd also imagine that a lot of the devices in planes, if it is anything like the old mil electronics I've come across... are contracted by the DoD to whoever, it doesn't matter if the company still exists - the DoD still has the specs and can get someone else to build replacement units (not to mention they over bought spare parts in the first place).I'd also imagine most outfits involved still exist in some way, perhaps swallowed by other massi

Does Apple actually make a MILSPEC iPad? If not, what are their plans for what to do if the "big one" finally happens and all consumer electronics are fried?
Interesting that you should mention that. I happened to be reading more about this issue and found that the approval process is actually quite involved. Since the FAA does not control the building of ipads and the source of components is not controlled, each individual serial number to be used in that environment must be certified independently. Not a